14 comments:

So often, the most offensive, for obvious reasons, are the most vocal about their right to speak.

But isn't that the way?

Are we that lost that Liberals and Conservatives actually disagree on the importance of free speech in the abstract? Why not start with that, and then, ask yourself, if we left the CHRC as it presently stands, would you be happy giving the reigns to control that process, to decide what "hate" is to Marc Lemire?

I sure as hell wouldn't and I'm thinking that neither would you. So why create a weapon that can't possibly be assured to be kept out of irresponsible hands when the price of its misuse is so high?

I love the quote from a Democrat of all things:

"We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. ~John F. Kennedy

So often, the most offensive, for obvious reasons, are the most vocal about their right to speak.

That's just not true. There are plenty of people who are not offensive whose free speech rights are being trampled. That the Free Screechers so often choose to defend the offensive ones is nothing more than an example of the type of speech and people they're willing to defend.

Perhaps, Robert, though I haven't seen a lot of prominent free speech advocates from the right asserting that views they don't agree with aren't entitled to the same protection.

My point, however, is that those who may be offended by Ezra Levant or Mark Steyn, I think throw the baby out with the bathwater in opposing repeal or significant amendment of Section 13.

I'd prefer, personally, to be counted with those who say, not just Marc Lemire, but anti-Israeli Palestinians, anti and pro-abortion protesters, Greenpeace (within the bounds of the law), EVERYONE deserves to be able to express their views, as much as I might be offended.

And that includes the sort of demented minds who think that the white race are the chosen people and such ignorant dreck.

I think if you look you'll see that I have supported a number of reforms to s13 and HRC conduct (like teaming up at the national and prov. level to prevent forum shopping). Not that any of the reforms were first suggested by me.

This definitely cements the Fourniers' formal induction into a not-so-exclusive club.

Other honorees have been David Irving (the police raised Christie's meeting in 1991 because Irving was in Canada illegally) Doug Collins,Paul Fromm, James Keegstra, Malcolm Ross, and in 2008, a priest who testified on behalf of Michael Seifert who has since been extradited to Italy,where he was convicted in absentia for crimes against humanity in WW2, namely the shooting massacre of over 300 civilian hostages.

The first recipient of this award, Gary Botting, himself a lawyer whorepresented the League in 1986,eventually returned the award & left the group denouncing it as"a front for an antisemitic, pro-Nazi agenda."

BCL.. thanks for the advice regarding your own views. Sometimes it just strikes me that we get so wrapped up in our parties fortunes, that we argue for or against things that, deep down, we actually don't disagree with..

Though I would agree completely with the sentiment that the "Orwell Prize" is, judging from the company it keeps, no group I would like to have at my table..

But the stupid thing with free speech is so often the most odious speakers are the one's who challenge our commitment to freedom.

If I recall correctly (and I do), Little Sister's bookstore in Vancouver has been fighting the government on free speech issues for decades, even winning their case in the Supreme Court only to have the government ignore the ruling.

Yet I don't recall Levant and Steyn taking up their cause in the 25 years or so they've had the opportunity to do so. Ditto such free speech warriors as the Fourniers, Lemire or anyone else.

Let's be quite clear. The only speech any of these people are remotely interested in defending is hate speech against minorities. Period. Their freedom loving extends ONLY to the advocacy of restricting other people's freedom.

There are certainly restrictions on the freedom of speech in our society that I care deeply about. And once those are taken care of I might just give a flying fuck about the rights of people to advocate killing homosexuals and Jews.

But probably not. Fuck the Fourniers. Fuck Levant. Fuck Steyn. Fuck Lemire. May those sick fucks all rot in hell.

Yet I don't recall Levant and Steyn taking up their cause in the 25 years or so they've had the opportunity to do so.

I can't even recall when any of them has even addressed the charge that they seem rather selective in their defence of freedom of expression, precisely when it comes to this issue, which is a case true censorship.